Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We're currently house hunting a number of different areas in Nassau, from Herricks SD, to New Hyde Park SD, to East Meadow, Syosset, Massapequa Park, etc. As expected, the amount we're looking to spend (~$450k) typically results in crappier houses as the perceived quality of the school district improves.
So anyways, the logic in my head behind the better school districts is as follows -
1. Well, it is a better education for my kid. Duh.
2. There is a greater demand for these districts, so buying a crap house and improving it a few years down the line will result in a greater return when it comes time to sell versus buying in a "lesser" school district.
I can rationalize #1 above since even a non-top tier SD is still damn good in Nassau. I'm having trouble with #2 tho'. While I first and foremost want a place that I will enjoy living in, I realize that the best way for me to upgrade houses in the future would be to build equity in a house, something that I think I'd have a better chance of doing if I were in a better SD. Is this logic flawed?
Honestly, if your child wants to learn and values education themselves then they will do good no matter what district their in (as long as it's at least an half-way decent school district). If your child doesn't care about learning then not even being in the finest School District in existence will change their attitudes towards it.
But the higher ranking the School District is, the higher the resale value usually is.. just in case you plan on selling your home in the future.
Yeah the resale value is what has me uncertain of what to do. It just seems to make sense to buy in a better SD now since prices and interest rates are low. But, I'd likely be sacrificing house quality and property size as a result.
I think your rationale behind #2 is quite sound. We bought a house in a top district in 1997, remodeled it after we'd been there awhile, and sold it last spring. I can't say even with the collapse of the housing market that we really lost any money by not selling sooner. Our house held its value and we were very happy with what we got for it. Better yet, we sold it in 2 weeks and had multiple offers on it.
I'm pretty sure if we were in a (perceived) lesser district we would not have done so well. BUt that was our plan going on - buy a smaller house in a better area instead of a bigger, nicer house in a (perceived) not-as-great area, and it all paid off exactly as we'd hoped.
We bought that house planning on living there a long time, and if you have the same plan you'll be fine. We were still there 13 years, which is a fairly long time, especially these days.
Yeah the resale value is what has me uncertain of what to do. It just seems to make sense to buy in a better SD now since prices and interest rates are low. But, I'd likely be sacrificing house quality and property size as a result.
If you buy in a good SD, you have to pay a premium for the price, which will also help you when you sell because the house will lose less or appreciate more compared to a inferior SD. If you have cash for improvement, then go for the best SD you can afford and then fix the house. If you do not have cash, then buy a excellent/mint house that does not need major care for atleast 2-3 years.
How your kids will turn out is anyones guess, good SD or not, that one is entirely on you !
The third variable I forgot to add is stress. I'm wondering if I'll be more stressed in a better SD, since taxes will likely be higher (esp. if I do renovate down the line) and also the fact that my kid is only 2 now, so I'll be paxes higher taxes for a SD that won't even be used for a few years.
Reading a lot of these LI threads has gotten me a bit jaded about how much we pay for crap houses on LI, and I do question whether I should do the same, or get my bigger lot in a decent, but not great district and pay maybe $50k less than I could afford (e.g.; a $400k nice house in East Meadow instead of a $450k crap house in Herricks), just to be less stressed.
We were fortunate when my daughter was born that my wife could take off 8 months, since we lived in a co-op and one salary could cover the mortgage and bills during that time. I hate knowing that buying a house will deny us that luxury, but we need/want the space.
We're currently house hunting a number of different areas in Nassau, from Herricks SD, to New Hyde Park SD, to East Meadow, Syosset, Massapequa Park, etc. As expected, the amount we're looking to spend (~$450k) typically results in crappier houses as the perceived quality of the school district improves.
So anyways, the logic in my head behind the better school districts is as follows -
1. Well, it is a better education for my kid. Duh.
2. There is a greater demand for these districts, so buying a crap house and improving it a few years down the line will result in a greater return when it comes time to sell versus buying in a "lesser" school district.
I can rationalize #1 above since even a non-top tier SD is still damn good in Nassau. I'm having trouble with #2 tho'. While I first and foremost want a place that I will enjoy living in, I realize that the best way for me to upgrade houses in the future would be to build equity in a house, something that I think I'd have a better chance of doing if I were in a better SD. Is this logic flawed?
Point #1 is pure rubbish. Kids are getting a similar education regardless of which school they attend. Parenting makes all the difference.
point #2 is valid and logical thinking from an investment perspective. However, "Good" school districts often come with a higher price tag (Taxes) so this has to be factored in to the plan.
Chiming in on taxes -- not all (perceived) good school districts have higher taxes compared to those in (perceived) lesser districts. Part of that has to do with the amount of commercial properties within the district. An area low on commercial properties will cause homeowners to pay more. Wasn't a few years ago when Nassau took on the Herculean task of reassessing that the people in the 'poorer' areas ended up paying more than those in more affluent ones?
The third variable I forgot to add is stress. I'm wondering if I'll be more stressed in a better SD, since taxes will likely be higher (esp. if I do renovate down the line) and also the fact that my kid is only 2 now, so I'll be paxes higher taxes for a SD that won't even be used for a few years.
Reading a lot of these LI threads has gotten me a bit jaded about how much we pay for crap houses on LI, and I do question whether I should do the same, or get my bigger lot in a decent, but not great district and pay maybe $50k less than I could afford (e.g.; a $400k nice house in East Meadow instead of a $450k crap house in Herricks), just to be less stressed.
We were fortunate when my daughter was born that my wife could take off 8 months, since we lived in a co-op and one salary could cover the mortgage and bills during that time. I hate knowing that buying a house will deny us that luxury, but we need/want the space.
There is no "relief" in property taxes for people living in the "bad" or "mediocre" school districts. You can still have high taxes in those areas because approximately 85% of any school district's budget goes straight to teacher and administrator salaries, benefits and pensions. Do not believe for a minute that those who work in the "lesser" school districts are getting significantly "lesser" compensation packages which result in significantly lower property taxes for area residents. Their unions do not negotiate based on performance. Performance has nothing to do with it. (There is also a belief that perhaps those working in the "bad" school districts deserve more money than those working in "good" school districts as a form of "combat pay.")
For example, if someone wants to live in Lynbrook, it is served by 4 or so school districts, but the best SD that serves it is Lynbrook 20. I have seen home sales fall through when people realize that they are paying the same amount of property taxes when zoned for the mediocre Malverne 12 school district in Lynbrook. They figure if they are going to pay that much in taxes, they might as well be over the "imaginary line" in school district 20. I don't blame them at all. High property taxes are not reserved for "great" school districts only. You get no tax relief for living in a "bad" school district.
There is no "relief" in property taxes for people living in the "bad" or "mediocre" school districts. You can still have high taxes in those areas because approximately 85% of any school district's budget goes straight to teacher and administrator salaries, benefits and pensions. Do not believe for a minute that those who work in the "lesser" school districts are getting significantly "lesser" compensation packages which result in significantly lower property taxes for area residents. Their unions do not negotiate based on performance. Performance has nothing to do with it. (There is also a belief that perhaps those working in the "bad" school districts deserve more money than those working in "good" school districts as a form of "combat pay.")
For example, if someone wants to live in Lynbrook, it is served by 4 or so school districts, but the best SD that serves it is Lynbrook 20. I have seen home sales fall through when people realize that they are paying the same amount of property taxes when zoned for the mediocre Malverne 12 school district in Lynbrook. They figure if they are going to pay that much in taxes, they might as well be over the "imaginary line" in school district 20. I don't blame them at all. High property taxes are not reserved for "great" school districts only. You get no tax relief for living in a "bad" school district.
Good post I_LOVE, tried to rep ya but I have to "spread some reps around".. One of the few obvious exceptions to the statement above, is Plainview. The school taxes there are astronomical.. but it pays off I suppose> Long Island Schools - Test scores, school programs - Newsday.com
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruhkus
We're currently house hunting a number of different areas in Nassau, from Herricks SD, to New Hyde Park SD, to East Meadow, Syosset, Massapequa Park, etc. As expected, the amount we're looking to spend (~$450k) typically results in crappier houses as the perceived quality of the school district improves.
So anyways, the logic in my head behind the better school districts is as follows -
1. Well, it is a better education for my kid. Duh.
2. There is a greater demand for these districts, so buying a crap house and improving it a few years down the line will result in a greater return when it comes time to sell versus buying in a "lesser" school district.
I can rationalize #1 above since even a non-top tier SD is still damn good in Nassau. I'm having trouble with #2 tho'. While I first and foremost want a place that I will enjoy living in, I realize that the best way for me to upgrade houses in the future would be to build equity in a house, something that I think I'd have a better chance of doing if I were in a better SD. Is this logic flawed?
Yeah, you want your children to be able to read..especially since Globalization is changing economies around the world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
